Integration Not Obsessive Contention

This discussion dramatizes what is wrong with economic theorizing, namely dualistic, obsessive, non-resolving contentiousness.

What is required is integrating BOTH anthropological AND empirical evidences and then considering and finding a single concept that fits seamlessly within and enables a thirdness greater oneness of such evidences namely a pattern/paradigm change. As I have pointed out here many times before two of the major signatures of a paradigm change are the discovery of a new insight and/or tool and conceptual opposition to the current/old paradigm.

So the discovery of the power of a monetary policy at the single aggregative ending point for all consumer goods and services, hence the terminal expression point for all economic factors including inflation and purchasing power and finally that fits seamlessly within the very woof and warp of exchange, i.e. economics/the productive process itself…seems to fit such insight.

And a 50% discount/rebate monetary policy at that point (retail sale) would result in empirically inverting the present realities of individual income scarcity and systemic business revenue austerity into abundance of same thus fulfilling the conceptual opposition signature (and integratively the temporal reality one as well) of genuine paradigm change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s